The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
On the Biology of Sex, Sex Differentiation, and the Performance Gap
Yes, it is all about testosterone. [UPDATE: Post bumped, because a tech glitch kept people from being able to comment on it; that should be fixed now.]
This series was originally written and posted in March 2019, after intersex athlete and Rio Gold Medalist Caster Semenya's hearing at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Since then, it has been confirmed that none of the medalists in the women's 800 meters in Rio were biologically female; put differently, both the men's and the women's podiums in that event were swept by athletes who are biologically male.
Also since I wrote last, the focus of the scientific work has been less on intersex athletes and more on transgender women and girls—specifically the extent to which it's possible to mitigate male-sex linked performance advantages through testosterone suppression and/or gonadectomy. Testosterone (T) is the hormone we love to hate, and recently there's been a lot of hate, including from activists in the academy, at the ACLU, and elsewhere who have cynically spun and thoroughly politicized the science. Thankfully, relevant experts have stepped up to the plate to right many of those wrongs, including Carole Hooven at Harvard, Emma Hilton, Ross Tucker, and Joanna Harper. We can and should argue about what to do with results data and science facts, but prevarication about what they are is not the stuff of good policymaking.
[* * *]
To borrow from a 2019 NYT editorial about anti-vaxxers, "sometimes it's ok to get out of the grey zone." Scientists are generally "uncomfortable with black-and-white statements, because science is all about nuance." But in the case of sex and sport, "there are some hard truths that deserve to be trumpeted." There is a significant performance difference between males and females from puberty onward. Testosterone is the primary driver of that difference. There is a wide gap, no overlap, between the male and female T ranges. Sex may not be binary for all people or for all purposes. But for sport, what most of us mean when we say "sex" is actually what matters, and that sex is undeniably binary: you either have testes and functional androgen receptors, or you don't. "Full stop."
In a nutshell, from Sex in Sport:
The "normal human fetus of either sex has the potential to develop either male or female organs, depending on genetic and hormonal influences." Specifically, "all developing embryos become feminized unless masculinizing influences [androgens] come into play at key times during gestation." Sex differentiation, defined in the first instance as the development of the testes, is triggered by the SRY gene which is present on the Y chromosome…. Testicular production of testosterone is primarily responsible for the difference in male and female testosterone levels, both during development and throughout the individual's lifetime…. [A]lthough males and females both produce testosterone, males have a lot more because the testes produce more than ovaries, adrenal glands, and cysts or tumors.
The following figure, also from Sex in Sport, demonstrates what we mean by "a lot more":
Testosterone (T) Reference Ranges
Sex Typical and Atypical (Intersex)

Sport converts ng/dL to nanomoles per liter (nmol/l). In those units, the female range is from 0.4 to 2.1 nmol/l; the male range is from 10.2 to 39.9 nmol/l; and the gap between the two is 8.1 nmol/l.
On average, even in the elite athlete population, males have 30 times more T than females. This includes both transgender women and girls starting from the onset of puberty, and 46-XY males with the two differences of sex development (DSDs) that are most relevant for sport: 5ARD (alpha-reductase deficiency) and PAIS (partial androgen insensitivity). The Gold, Silver, and Bronze medalists in the women's 800 meters in Rio—Caster Semenya, Francine Nyonsaba, and Margaret Wambui—are all suspected of having the former condition. They are not "hyperandrogenic females." The latter are represented on the figure as 46-XX females with PCOS (polycystic ovaries) and CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia).
This difference in T levels is responsible for the performance gap. Specifically, the sports science community is in wide agreement on the following three points, which they regard as our equivalent of judicially noticeable facts:
First, the main physical attributes that contribute to elite athletic performance are power generation (speed and strength), which is based on muscle mass, muscle fiber type, and biomechanics; aerobic power (VO2 max), which is based on hemoglobin concentration, total blood volume, maximal stroke volume, cardiac size/mass/compliance, skeletal muscle blood flow, capillary density, and mitochondrial content; body composition, i.e., lean body mass and fat mass; and economy of motion, which is related to body composition.
Second, biological males and biological females are materially different with respect to these attributes. Specifically, compared to biological females, biological males have greater lean body mass (more skeletal muscle and less fat), larger hearts (both in absolute terms and scaled to lean body mass), higher cardiac outputs, larger hemoglobin mass, larger VO2 max (also both in absolute terms and scaled to lean body mass), greater glycogen utilization, higher anaerobic capacity, and different economy of motion.
Third, the primary reason for these sex differences in the physical attributes that contribute to elite athletic performance is exposure in gonadal males with functional androgen receptors to much higher levels of testosterone during growth and development (puberty), and throughout the athletic career. No other endogenous physical or physiological factors have been identified as contributing substantially and predominantly to these differences.
This figure from andrologist David Handlesman shows the relationship between the onset of male puberty and the development of the performance gap:

Wickliffe Shreve, Jeff Wald, Richard Clark, and I developed the next figure to bring these science facts to life. The figure marks the individual lifetime bests of three well-known female Olympic Champions in the 400 meters—Sanya Richards-Ross, Allyson Felix, and Christine Ohuruogu—in the sea of male-bodied performances run just in the single year 2017. It shows that the women would lose to the very best senior men that year by about 12%. But it also shows that even at their absolute best, they would go on to lose to literally thousands of other boys and men beginning at 0.1%.
In fact, the most important tranches are from 0.01% to 3%: In total, just in 2017, there were 6,959 male-bodied performances from 0.01% to 3% of Ms. Richards-Ross's lifetime best. This compares with a combined total of just 2,740 in the tranches from 3-11%. None of the performances from 0.01% to 3% would be considered elite in men's events either on the collegiate or the international stage.
Advocates for an identity-based eligibility rule argue—without any basis in the physical sciences, mind you—that the dominance of male-bodied athletes over female-bodied athletes is not necessarily due to their testosterone ('T') levels, i.e., that T is no more determinative of outcomes in sport than are other advantageous traits. Unless the point is the also-basic one that as between any two individuals—e.g., Allyson Felix and a random non-elite male who runs about the same times she does—T is not necessarily dispositive, this argument has no merit. As I suggested in a NYT analysis piece last year, "Pick your body part, your geography, and your socioeconomic status and do your comparative homework. Starting in puberty there will always be boys who can beat the best girls and men who can beat the best women."
Because the anti-T crowd often uses swimmers to illustrate their point, I'll close with this from Sex in Sport:
[T]he performance gap holds even when we adjust for the fact that the best elite athletes are "freaks of nature" and that their success can be largely attributed to their unusual physical traits. Sex, specifically testes and their effects, matter in ways that other biological differences among athletes do not.
For example, swimmer and multiple Gold Medalist Missy Franklin is six feet two inches tall with a wing span of six feet four inches. Her world record in the 200 meters backstroke, set at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, is 2:04.06. Ryan Lochte's world record, set at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, was a full nine seconds faster at 1:53.94. If Franklin had been in that race, at her best she would have been about a half a lap behind Lochte when he finished, even though they are the same height and have just about the same wingspan.
In a world in which competitors were categorized by height and wingspan—or just height or just wingspan—instead of sex, Franklin would not have had a world record; she would not have been on the podium; in fact, she would not have made the team. In those circumstances, we might not even know her name.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Thanks for the clarity which is usually so lacking in legal articles. I have always been aware of the differences, but not that they were this stark and definitive.
And somehow you have increased my contempt for the woke gender fluidity crowd, which I would not have thought possible.
"And somehow you have increased my contempt for the woke gender fluidity crowd,"
In that case, she has earned her Federalist-Heritage-Koch-Republican-Bradley-Olin-Scaife stipends and honoraria . . . but still has done nothing to alter the beautiful trajectory of American progress forged by our great liberal-libertarian mainstream.
OK, Boomer. Whatever. That much vaunted US Women's Soccer Team was beaten in a scrimmage by an American male high school team. Imagine the slaughter if they had played a male high school team from Argentina or any nation where that sport is taken seriously.
Not true. It was the Dallas FC U 15 in a structured scrimmage. That’s practice. Doesn’t take anything away from the stats above on sex-based differences
Your "15" refers to under age 15, doesn't it?
I find it strange that conservatives, who may have been opposed to equal status for womens' sports, now defending its purity and reason to the hilt.
I also find it bizarre the left abandons it in practice, turning to what might be called transubstantiation of the body.
In religious doctrine, eating the bread and drinking the wine, you weren't consuming a symbol. You were literally consuming the body and blood of Christ through a process called transubstantiation.
Philosophically, there's a thing's physical aspect, then there's its ideal universe actual essence. In that realm, the bread and wine become the literal body and blood, even though they appear to not have changed.
Here the male body, still physiologically male, is by transubstantiation, female. Which is fine as far as laws or feelings go.
But the physicality remains, like bread, actuay bread.
Anyway are these parades of horribles common, or rare?
"I find it strange that..."
The parties are swapping places. The old GOP and the old DNC are switching the views, bases, and support groups. The DNC is rapidly becoming the party of big business and urban professionals, where as the GOP is becoming the party of the working class.
You can see this play out. You can see the debate in the DNC about lifting the SALT cap, which is just a massive tax break to rich people, no matter how you parse it. The only "question" is if there should be a $400,000 cap on income or no cap on income.
You can see if with Nancy Pelosi defending Congressmen trading stock, because "It's a free market". Or with "liberals" demanding segregated dorms and quantifying everything by the race of the person.
They've been swapping places for a while. 2006 was the pivitol year in my mind, but that's what's going on.
I find it strange that conservatives, who may have been opposed to equal status for womens' sports, now defending its purity and reason to the hilt.
This is because there is no contradiction. It's perfectly possible to want kids under 12 soccer games to be limited to under 12s, so that the games are fun for those involved, reasonably competitive and enjoyable for particiants and parents alike, and not as dangerous as they might be if 30 year old men decided to join in; without simultaneously believing that US kids soccer is in any way "equal" to, say, La Liga or the Premier League.
Women's sports are good for health, entertaining for players and spectators and should be encouraged, though not necessarily with tax dollars. Ditto men's. But, since far fewer young women than young men are interested in playing sports the effect of the legal insistence on "equality" simply means that demand exceeds supply for young men, but not for young women.
The result is less sport than would otherwise obtain - which is bad for health, and less entertainment for players and spectators. Which is probably what the people who thought up Title IX secretly wanted, being, no doubt, pasty faced antisocial trolls closely resembling Jabba the Hutt, who never broke into a run anywhere, except in an attempt to steal a small child's lunch.
Tell us you're completely ignorant and biased without telling us that you're completely ignorant and biased.
I find it strange that conservatives, who may have been opposed to equal status for womens' sports, now defending its purity and reason to the hilt.
huhuhuhuh you said "Nut-shell"
too bad you didn't get in a "Deeze"
Frank "has Deeze"
I do dislike those first two sets of graphs - on testosterone in males and females, and the gender difference in performance.
The testosterone one is trying to do too much work – show the T range for females and the DSD causes of high female T, show the T range for males and the DSD causes of low male T, AND compare female and male T ranges. But in order to show the fine definition for the female scale, we have a jump in the X axis, and a different scale after the jump.
The jump and the scale change makes one suspect sharp graphical practice - though in fact they lead the viewer to underestimate the difference in male and female T ranges – thereby somewhat undermining the point of showing the graph.
Better would have been a single X axis scale with no jump, and if that causes the female T range to get a bit scrunched up, tough.
Two of the gender difference graphs have non-zero starts to the Y axis. Usually a non zero start to the Y axis is a signal of sharp practice - to make a small difference appear bigger. Although in this case it doesn't really make any significant difference to how you visualise the information, as the Y axis goes down to nearly zero, it's still disconcerting and raises unnecessary suspicion.
However, the rest of the piece was excellent. Clear and well informed.
I put the graph ugliness down to making a simple graph suitable for a web article.
I'm guessing the graph is extracted from an actual scientific paper, and scientists are expected to pay attention to the actual labels on the graph axes, not just the visual impression.
I found it perfectly understandable, and the size of the gap remarkable, even without it being visually displayed.
Men and women are pretty different biologically, and in their responses to the sex hormones. A man would be desperately ill at the normal female level of testosterone, and a woman at the normal male level of estrogen.
It may be all about testosterone in sports that are all about strength and endurance. But women are well behind men in snooker and darts where skill and coordination matter but strength and endurance don't. They are also well behind in purely mental sports such as chess, bridge, poker. and scrabble. I doubt any surgery or drugs can undo the effects of tens of thousands of years of evolution.
women are well behind men in snooker and darts where skill and coordination matter but strength and endurance don't
Steve Davis, the former world snooker champion, suggested that to be really good at snooker you need to be totally obsessive about it, and in his experience there were very few totally obsessive women.
That's down to men having 1 each of the X and Y chromosomes, and women having duplicate X chromosomes. It results in men having more genetic variability for good AND for bad: More gymnasts and klutzes, more geniuses and morons.
The male bell curve might be centered in the same place as the women's curve, as far as we can tell, but it's a lot flatter.
Everybody freaks out about the disproportion of men in activities that require extra special endowments, but people tend to ignore the disproportion of men who got the short end of that stick.
Men are men.
Women are women.
Science.
It’s really an argument between the normals and the crazies.
Any rational person without a political agenda can easily see that men and women are physically different, with men generally stronger and faster.
Men who think they are women will usually defeat women in sports requiring speed and strength.
Even if they have lowered their testosterone levels.
Normal People see how this is unfair to biological Women.
Crazy people don’t see this reality.
I hope you address the argument that trans women with current low T levels should nonetheless be barred from women's competition because of the ongoing advantage gained by going through puberty with androgen receptors that accepted high levels of testosterone.
Her world record in the 200 meters backstroke, set at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, is 2:04.06. Ryan Lochte's world record, set at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, was a full nine seconds faster at 1:53.94.
Actually, a full 10 seconds faster. But a lousy argument, anyway. Lochte and Franklin were both freaks.
Having read the article, I wonder whether we need the male/female distinction in sports at all. Why couldn’t we a high testosterone / low testosterone dividing line instead? Wouldn’t that solve the hairsplitting arguments about whether people with extremely rare genetic conditions resulting in ambiguous or female genitalia, but very high testosterone, are « really » women?
Because testosterone is a hormone that has both long term and short term effects. Testosterone affects the size and shape of your skeleton as it grows, and your bone density. It affects the size of your heart and lungs, as well as your fat/muscle proportions. It does not do this over the past 12 months, it does this over the course of your life, particularly during the growth spurt in puberty.
While it is true that taking drugs to suppress testosterone can reduce your muscle mass over a matter of months, that doesn't shrink your heart or change your skeletal shape or your bone density or change the length of your limbs.
Think of food. If you grow up well nourished, you'll become as big as your genes allow. If you later become malnourished you may get thin, or sick, but you're not going to shrink. If you grow up malnourished you won't become as big as your genes would allow - you'll be smaller. If you later become well nourished you won't get bigger - except horizontally. The damage has already been done during your childhood and teen growth and development. The ship has sailed.
Reducing current testosterone levels is quite easy, but it has only a modest effect on performance. A cis woman and a trans woman with identical current T levels are still hugely different as far as strength and power are concerned, because of testosterone differences. But historical testosterone differences.
This is a good summary :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
Republishing a handful of years-old posts by a female "guest blogger" at year-end -- padding statistics in a bizarre response to observations that this is a strikingly White, astoundingly male blog -- seems pathetic and desperate.
Which is exactly how I like clingers -- pathetic and desperate.
(This is gaming at the level of the infamous Gaziano-Heriot gambit with respect to a civil rights commission. In the small world that is the clingerverse, Heriot is a Volokh Conspirator and Gaziano is a friend of this White, male, right-wing blog, naturally.)